indiefoot Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 In a most fortuitous evening, I happen to have one of the UK's most active researchers on Neanderthals staying at mine tonight. Apparently an anthropologist from Oxford university is currently undertaking a study into scientific attitudes towards Neanderthals (how these have changed over time: 90s hulk to 00s sophisticate) as part of a wider investigation into the way scientists interpret their findings. In other words, looking into the often subjective nature of human ancestry. The way we view Neandertals has changed along with the idea that we "bred" them into extinction rather than killed them off with our superior technology. Are we just making excuses for our ancestors?
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Yes, from everything I've read I agree. Out of interest have or would you discuss your interest in sasquatch with her, your colleagues or your wife? Yes, up to a point. My wife is open to the idea (she places more credence in the Mandi Burun of south Asia) but doesn't really expend any time thinking much about it. Would I discuss it with colleagues? Yes, but it's always in a jokey way: they know my interest and we may chat about on occasion. I managed to get two of them into the Bigfoot Show! I guess the issue is the perennial problem of sasquatch being an inherently wacky topic of conversation for 99.9% of people. Chances to discuss it in a detailed manner just don't crop up and I would inevitably just end up being the bloke who thinks monkey monsters live in California.... The way we view Neandertals has changed along with the idea that we "bred" them into extinction rather than killed them off with our superior technology. Are we just making excuses for our ancestors? Yep absolutely. There is, as with sasquatch, a cultural taint to how we perceive Neanderthals and in fact all our probable ancestors. We cannot get away from the very powerful cultural idea of monkey men and cave men. This thread is the perfect example: the tripe being written by some is an exemplar of that unthinking attitude. Science is thankfully getting us ever closer to the truth.
southernyahoo Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 It wouldn't surprise me if their DNA is so close to ours as to be easily mistaken for ours. This is what I expected before we had any DNA studies. Mitochondrial analysis would be proof if they weren't human or sapiens though. Stan do you have contact with those who study the DNA?
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Nope. Sorry. Just some field archaeologists and researchers.
Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Bizarrely, and somewhat ironically, you and I both have literally no idea what you are on about. Makes three of us. Maybe a club is in the offing! I guess the issue is the perennial problem of sasquatch being an inherently wacky topic of conversation for 99.9% of people. Chances to discuss it in a detailed manner just don't crop up and I would inevitably just end up being the bloke who thinks monkey monsters live in California.... That's the reason I don't bother talking about it to all but a few people I know (and most of those, generally, only if one or two of the others are present). People simply aren't intellectually engaged in this topic. They have about three degrees less than zero idea how much evidence there is and how consistent it is. It's simply impossible to talk to them. This isn't a 90-second, Point/Counterpoint debate topic. It virtually requires immersion in the evidence to discuss halfway intelligently. Yep absolutely. There is, as with sasquatch, a cultural taint to how we perceive Neanderthals and in fact all our probable ancestors. We cannot get away from the very powerful cultural idea of monkey men and cave men. This thread is the perfect example: the tripe being written by some is an exemplar of that unthinking attitude. Science is thankfully getting us ever closer to the truth. It's been a mental handicap for way too long with way too many; and it contributes to the attitudes toward sasquatch and yeti in no small way.
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Bizarrely, and somewhat ironically, you and I both have literally no idea what you are on about. Makes three of us. Maybe a club is in the offing! Hmm, perhaps I could yet again, try to help out in the SIMPLEST manner I can imagine. Any basic information on Neanderthal, generally speaking, confirms my more colorful perspectives. You can look up 'Neanderthal' in google, and go to wiki, or any basic anthropology site on Neanderthal. They all confirm, actually, the 1-4% 'Neanderthal'' genes may be just common ancestor, this is on Wiki Neanderthal page, just basic Neanderthal information. I guess that should be a question. Yes, should be a question, but I'm pushing forward here. No site I can find is saying Neanderthal was the 'equal' of Cro-Magnon man. Now, this IS a bigfoot site, and other paranormal ideas flow freely, so the idea Neanderthal was the same as Modern Humans, DESPITE all the evidence, and belief in Unicorns, etc, can go, rather absurdly, hand in hand. But, I am repeating myself, in this ridiculous circular debate. I hate to ask, but where is all the information on how equal the Thals were to Moderns? Oh, asked that already. Hmmmm. Time for a silly-walk
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Scientists Identify Neanderthal Genes in Modern Human DNA Jan 30, 2014 by Sci-News.com In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA. About 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa began encountering Neanderthals, a lineage that had diverged from modern humans hundreds of thousands of years before. Despite their differences, Homo sapiensand Neanderthals mingled, and over time, produced children with genes from both lineages. Today, the biological remnants of that collision between two distinct populations remain alive in the genomes of Europeans and East Asians. The first study, reported in the journal Nature, examines how Neanderthals influence the genetic composition of modern humans. Study’s senior author Dr David Reich of Harvard Medical School said: “the goal was to understand the biological impact of the gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans.†“We reasoned that when these two groups met and mixed, some new traits would have been selected for and remained in the human genome, while some incompatibilities would have been selected against and removed.†“As methods to analyze ancient DNA continue to improve, we are able to get at answers to ever more fine-grained questions about our evolutionary history,†added Dr Elizabeth Tran of the National Science Foundation, who was not involved in the studies. Dr Reich and his colleagues analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal. They showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect lupus, biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, optic-disk size and type 2 diabetes and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins. The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk. “Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,†Dr Reich said. The scientists also found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like ‘deserts’ with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average. “The barren areas were the most exciting finding. It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection,†said lead author Dr Sriram Sankararaman from the Harvard and MIT’s Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School. The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility. Dr Reich explained: “this suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility.†“Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years, are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.†The second study, published online in the journal Science, tests an innovative, fossil-free method for sequencing archaic DNA. Co-authors Dr Benjamin Vernot and Dr Joshua Akey, both from the University of Washington, analyzed whole-genome sequencing data from 379 Europeans and 286 East Asians to identify Neanderthal lineages that persist in the modern DNA. “We found evidence that Neanderthal skin genes made Europeans and East Asians more evolutionarily fit, and that other Neanderthal genes were apparently incompatible with the rest of the modern human genome, and thus did not survive to present day human populations,†Dr Vernot said. The scientists observed that certain chromosomes arms in humans are tellingly devoid of Neanderthal DNA sequences, perhaps due to mismatches between the two species along certain portions of their genetic materials. For example, they noticed a strong depletion of Neanderthal DNA in a region of human genomes that contains a gene for a factor thought to play an important role in human speech and language. The results suggest that significant amounts of population-level DNA sequences might be obtained from extinct groups even in the absence of fossilized remains, because these ancient sequences might have been inherited by other individuals from whom scientists can gather genomic data. Therein lies the potential to discover and characterize previously unknown archaic humans that bred with early humans. “The fossil free method of sequencing archaic genomes not only holds promise in revealing aspects of the evolution of now-extinct archaic humans and their characteristic population genetics, it also might provide insights into how interbreeding influenced current patterns of human diversity,†Dr Vernot said. “In the future, I think scientists will be able to identify DNA from other extinct hominin, just by analyzing modern human genomes.†“From our end, this was an entirely computational project. I think it’s really interesting how careful application of the correct statistical and computational tools can uncover important aspects of health, biology and human history. Of course, you need good data, too.†______ Sriram Sankararaman et al. The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans. Nature, published online January 29, 2014; doi: 10.1038/nature12961 Benjamin Vernot and Joshua M. Akey. Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomes. Science, published online January 29, 2014; doi: 10.1126/science.1245938 Edited June 2, 2014 by Pteronarcyd
AaronD Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Bizarrely, and somewhat ironically, you and I both have literally no idea what you are on about. LOL that put a smile on my face
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 “Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years, are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.†This kind of puts two theories at odds with one another in that modern humans can show a 100k year separation and Neanderthals were 500k years separated yet are portrayed to be so human more recently. The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility. Dr Reich explained: “this suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility.†Truth is they were very different and almost incompatable biologicly. If BF has 100% modern hss mtDNA, they are us and probably the ugly cousins of our hybrid origins.
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 “Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,†Dr Reich said. This quote is fascinating. Might they have been more hairy than we sometimes envision?
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Admin Posted June 2, 2014 Define Hairy? European and Middle eastern men do seem to be more hairy than Asians or Africans. But I don't think Neanderthal's resembled a Gorilla in body hair. We know they made clothing, (which a Sasquatch does not seem to do) because of the tools we find associated with Thals. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/neanderthal-bone-tools It could also prove true and makes more sense to me..........that Neanderthals actually were more advanced in certain areas because they were on their own turf. And somehow this technology was transferred to Cro Magnon's coming out of Africa. As we see with the article above concerning bone tools. But some of the African Savannah technology made more sense in Ice age Europe than Thal technology did..........such as the throwing spear, and nomadic camps........versus the thrusting spear and living in caves.
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 The situation is complex undoubtedly. My take is that they were, as all the evidence suggests, very very close to us. By inference we can safely predict that their appearance and behaviour were not so very different from us: we were of the same genus and, individual variations aside, that makes us similar, period. The ecological niches able to be filled by an intelligent upright thinking Homo are not endless so we can postulate that those niches realised by sapiens and neandertalensis were not so very far apart... As much as we do know, we must remember we are getting a fragmented picture and new discoveries edge us ever closer to a full understanding.
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Admin Posted June 2, 2014 Ok let's boil this down to brass tacks.......... Tool manufacture: Neanderthals? Yes. Squatch? No. Fire manufacture: Neanderthals? Yes Squatch? No Clothing manufacture: Neanderthals? Yes Squatch? No Seven to eight feet in height: Neanderthals? No Squatch? Yes Eight hundred lbs in weight: Neanderthals? No Squatch? Yes Sixteen inch feet: Neanderthals? No Squatch? Yes Speech? Neanderthals? Yes Squatch? Unknown ----------------------------------------------- How is this stacking up? I think it's pretty obvious we have two very different species represented here. So different in fact that it's my opinion that they do not occupy the same genus......... I am looking at the morphology of the two species, as well as traits exhibited by each. We could argue that Squatch is some sort of back water devolved Neanderthal...........but what about the morphology? If indeed Humans and Thal's are separated by a common ancestor by 500,000 years? How much more separated does a Squatch need to be to exhibit the morphology it does from a Neanderthal? None of this hypothesis makes much sense to me. Squatch has very little time in evolutionary scale to loose Neanderthal technology and then become a giant. I think we are talking about millions of years here in separating between Squatch and ANY species in the genus Homo. Meganthropus? Or something akin to a species like that? Sure...... Our relationship with Meganthropus would be on par with our relationship to Lucy..............give or take a million years.
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Spot on again Norse... Btw...if ever you end up in France or northern Spain you simply must go to some of those rock art caves. They will simply leave you speechless. A truly spiritual experience if ever there was such a thing. Edited June 4, 2014 by Stan Norton Rule 2 C & GG 7
Guest lightheart Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I have been to Altamira. They made us walk in with headlamps with all the lights turned off. Then, when everyone was present they illuminated the ceiling of the area I believe they called the cathedral. It was spell-binding to be sure. We had to have special permission from the government to be admitted. At that time they had determined that the human respiration was causing lichen to grow on the walls and eat the paintings themselves. Obviously the "paint" was animal blood and charcoal so it was vulnerable to the lichen. I will never forget the experience.
Recommended Posts